Should Bible-believing churches perform funerals for gays?

Recently, an Arlington, TX megachurch refused to perform a funeral ceremony for a military veteran who died from "an infection" because he was gay. This, even though his brother was a janitor at the church. The real problem, however, is that the church agreed to do the service before finding out that the man was gay, then changed their mind. The question is, should bible-believing churches do funeral ceremonies for the outwardly unbelieving or unrepentant?

The church’s pastor, the Rev. Gary Simons, said no one knew Sinclair, who was not a church member, was gay until the day before the Thursday service, when staff members putting together his video tribute saw pictures of men "engaging in clear affection, kissing and embracing."

Simons said the church believes homosexuality is a sin, and it would have appeared to endorse that lifestyle if the service had been held there.

"We did decline to host the service — not based on hatred, not based on discrimination, but based on principle," Simons told The Associated Press. "Had we known it on the day they first spoke about it — yes, we would have declined then. It’s not that we didn’t love the family."

The first question that arises is, should Bible-believing churches do funeral services for non-believers? I know many who will not. If an unbeliever or their family wants a ceremony, perhaps they should go to a pastor who has the same beliefs. The pastor above makes a good point – are we being compassionate when we agree to set aside our principles, or are we compromising and not sending a message of truth? I think there are at least three approaches:

1. Grace OnlyProvide such ceremonies to all who ask. This will show your compassion. It only turns people off to what you have to say if you turn them away when they ask for service.

2. Truth OnlyAbsolutely refuse to bury anyone who is not a believer, even if their families are believers. Sending this honest message informs people that God is not to be manipulated by our sentiments, and that when we refuse God’s laws and message, He in turn can not accept us – we are accepted on His terms, not our own.

3. Grace and TruthProvide such services as long as participants are willing to submit their lives to biblical truths. I think that this church’s first mistake was agreeing to do a ceremony for someone they knew nothing about. The second was not looking for a better solution to the problem they got themselves into than just backing out. They did offer to pay the family for a service somewhere else, but the family refused. They could have done one more thing.

They could have performed the funeral, with the family’s understanding that they would also preach the message of salvation, including this fact:

1 Corinthians 6:9-10Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality,nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

And for gays who die of disease, we might need to mention this verse as well

Romans 1:26-27For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another,men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

Of course, now matter how graciously you bring this up at a funeral, it will be offensive, but needless to say, if it is true, a funeral is the perfect time to bring up such weighty matters as our eternal salvation.

While I know people usually use funerals to fondly remember the person, and such sentiment is proper, one can attempt to honor the good in people while also discussing their shortcomings. In fact, funeral hagiographies are boring to the hilt. At my funeral, I hope that, rather than trying to make me into a saint, they acknowledge both the examples of success and failure that mark my life.

THIS APPLIES TO MARRIAGE AS WELL

In the case of a wedding, if two unbelievers (or one believing and one not) want to be married, tell them that you will marry them if they successfully complete your marriage prep classes, which will include the gospel and the truth that believers should not be yolked to unbelievers. If the believer still wants to marry their unbelieving spouse (assuming that he now understands the gospel and still rejects it), I’d say you should NOT marry them, since the believer is in rebellion by marrying the unbeliever.

And of course, gay couples should be refused because, in general, the only biblical course we can offer them is to reject their dysfunction rather than marry.

You may want to require a profession of faith from one or both partners before proceeding, and as long as that is known up front, I think that is the right answer.

CONCLUSION

In the end, I think that believing churches should NOT perform funeral ceremonies for unbelievers unless the family is OK with preaching a biblical message, and should NOT perform marriage ceremonies unless at least one of the marriage partners is Christian. We should not expect the Pastor to present an unbiblical message that violates their beliefs, nor ask him to ignore the biblical perspective that bears on the situation.

In the case of this church (High Point Church), while I think they did make a mistake in offering their services before knowing about the life of the person, I think it is in keeping with principle to NOT perform services for unbelievers. However, rather than flat refusal, I think we should offer our services gladly with the condition that we do so biblically.

31 Responses

So, how is any of this news? It’s just one more example of the anti-gay stance of Christianity. For the life of me, I can’t understand why any gay person would want a Christian funeral. Of course, it was the man’s family who wanted it there since they were members. The dead war hero didn’t belong to any church (for obvious reasons) so you can’t blame him. The ugly truth is that much of Christianity’s claims of “charity” and “compassion” and “love” are just so much cant.

Yes, not everyone who goes to war is a "hero." While all are veterans, and deserve our respect, the term "hero" is one reserved for extraordinary service. If you want "hero" to mean everyone who serves, that's fine, but I wanted to make it clear that this person did not die on combat, which is in essence, giving your all for the country (i.e. a "hero"). This dead guy may have at one time risked his life, which is laudable, but also, it is what we ask all of our soldiers to do. Is that heroic? Sure, but dying because you contracted a disease through promiscuity is not the same as dying in combat, and I didn't want to mis-portray the dead guy's valor.

There's no indication that he died of AIDS. That's just your malice speaking. The story I read stated the following:Most recently he had been in failing health. Six years ago he developed a heart condition and was on a list for a transplant. On Monday he died of complications following surgery intended to keep him alive until a new heart became available. He was decorated for helping Navy pilots find downed aviators.

Skeptic: If this church had refused to bury the man because he was an adulterer, or an unrepentant liar, or an abusive alcoholic, or a murderer who said on record that he was happy he killed each and every one of his victims, or a child molester, or something else worse than anything I mentioned here; would you blame them for saying no? My point is that homosexuality is a sin as taught in the Bible. This creates a severe gray area. No one would have blamed a church for declining the burial on any of the sins that I mentioned above. So why does the church become suddenly unjust for denying the funeral on the basis of homosexuality? A sin is a sin, whether it be murder or whether it be homosexuality. That said, I don't think that the church handled this right either. But, I absolutely DO NOT think that this man's funeral would be an appropriate venue for teaching about the sin of homosexuality. In that respect, I think that declining the funeral was better than Seeker's suggestion.

First of all, when did churches start performing funerals? If you mean should a church allow their preacher to perform a funeral service for an unbelieving family member of one of its members, then YES. I would say that church should have allowed their preacher to do his job: Preach the Gospel of Jesus to the living members of the family. Who needed some good news. If the family did not want to hear that they do not have to be burdened by the same sins that oppressed their loved one, then they should probably not have chosen to have his memorial service done by christians.

There's no indication that he died of AIDS. That's just your malice speaking. The story I read stated the following: I never said he died from AIDS, so perhaps you should read a little more closely – that's just YOUR malice twisting what I said. The MSNCB article I referenced said he died from an infection while awaiting a heart transplant. Now maybe his immune system was depressed because of drugs he was taking for the transplant, maybe because of his ill health in general, and maybe because of AIDS. Don't forget, people with AIDS often die of other opportunistic infections as a result of having a compromised immune system. Oh, and also don't forget, gays are more likely to have AIDS than heteros, so such a guess might not be a bad one, esp. since people often cover up AIDS death because of the stigma of it. But I only intimated that the mysterious infection which the news article covered up might be related to his sexual orientation. It's a perfectly reasonable guess. But I'm sure your own "malice" made you accuse me.

You wrote:Sure, but dying because you contracted a disease through promiscuity… What else could you have meant than that it was AIDS. Other STDs don't lead to heart infections or immune system infections in general. And it's not perfectly reasonable to infer it was AIDS just because he's gay. That is a product of your evil hatred. But, of course, you don't have the basic honesty to admit it.

This is a good take on it. FWIW, the church doesn't like gays, and that's certainly their right. What surprised me was that the family didn't think to ask if this would be a problem. Stupid. (when I got married, my gal insisted on a church wedding. I thought that was silly, but was OK with it provided the pastor of the church knew that I am not nor will ever be a Christian, and that proselytization was not to be attempted. That kind of disclosure and consent is absolutely necessary for us non-Christians that want to make use of Church facilities)

I couldn't imagine that, if there's a difference between the two, a family's values should take precedence. That's reason #1 for having a will: it keeps the troublemakers and those with agendas out of the process. (already in my holistic will – gotta formalize it, but I'm proceeding under the assumption that my family isn't so unethical as to hijack my funeral. That'd be the epitome of tacky)

I have to note here that not all xian churches so despise gays that they refuse us funeral rites. In San Diego, a gay man was refused services in his RC church, but my former church, Episcopal, conducted it in its San Diego cathedral. There appears to be a schism in xianity: those who treat gays like human beings, and those who don't. seeker, obviously belongs to the latter.

But the future, Louis, belongs to the former. If the future belongs to the former, we are lost in our sins – it won't be love that has one out, but sin and deception. The fact that gays perceive such refusals as hatred is problematic for churches that want to employ both truth AND love (since they have no stomach for truth or holiness, and only want an all-accepting love), but wait until they fail on the day of judgment, when Jesus reads out loud the scripture "no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God" and they all go screaming into eternity, gnashing their teeth and weeping, accusing God "you are so hateful!" It is both Pharisees AND those who justify sin (by suppressing the truth) that will say to God "didn't we do all these great works in your name?" and he will say "depart from me, you workers of iniquity, for I never knew you." Those who say that they love God but fail to embrace either love or holiness do not really see God as He is, but only as they want Him to be. And as for your interpretation of my disease comment, that was not in direct reference to the article, but a general principle. If the shoe did fit for the deceased, then it would apply. But you seem to always find the worst possible interpration of my words, rather than the clearest. Which, btw, is hardly loving.

BTW, perhaps we shouldn't even do funerals for unbelievers at all. Jesus said "let the [spiritually] dead bury their dead." I think that funerals for believers are fine, and for their family members (if we can preach the truth at the funeral), but doing services for unbelievers and lying about "they are in a better place now" is disingenuous, if not lying. Why waste our time if we don't intend to tell the truth? Those who want to lie to themselves about the life to come for the unrepentant can find plenty of backslidden Episcopal or just about any other unbiblical church to play to their sentiments rather than the truth. While love may demand that we treat such people kindly, we should tell them the truth kindly, not lie to them or their families.

Don't hold your breath. Whatever. seeker is entitled to his beliefs, no matter how deluded they may be. I refer him to another thread wherein I mentioned a few of my objections to his version of religion. I merely add to that his tirade above. In fact, I was rather amused by it – that old fire-breathing God punishing sinners in lakes of fire for all eternity (especially gays). It just has no power to frighten or intimidate anymore. It's a relic of a time when people were uneducated and under the lash of religion allied with gov't – a bogieman conjured up to scare children and ignorant peasants. Ultimately, such threats are a self-defeating bore, and decent people will either laugh or turn away in disgust. seeker, I thought you were going to tread more lightly? What do think you are accomplishing by coming off as a street corner nutjob? I sincerely doubt that such windy tirades will convince anyone.

This is because the term did not exist 2000 years ago. This argument still mystifies me, and seems like one of those far-fetched stretches of reason. It's like saying that homosexuality didn't exist – I mean, if it existed (and, like most other sexual acts, they have existed from time immemorial), there had to be a word for it. I mean, are you still trying to sell the idea that the much more ancient Hebrew prohibitions were about temple prostitution too, and that same sex acts had no word for them? As I explained in Is Homosexuality Compatible with Authentic Christianity?, "homosexual" is the most probable interpretation of the Greek used, esp. if you are aware of the Septuagint and Paul's probable familiarity with it, not to mention the entire biblical context (which pro-gay theologians, of course, systematically cleanse of anti-homosexual interpretation). And to repeat, Romans 1 clearly describes same-sex attraction as unnatural and sinful. While pro-gay theologians have asked some good questions about how we translate such passages, I find their logic largely unconvincing – even their approach to Sodom ignores the obvious implication that homosexual rape is the epitome of sinfulness. But we are covering old ground here. The "they had no concept of homosexuality" argument is as laughable as saying "they had not concept of bestiality or prostitution" either. I can just hear them.

"Ooh, look at those guys kissing over there. How strange! Have you ever seen anything like that, or even heard of it?" "Nope" "Me neither. Is there a name for that?" "For what?" "You know, THAT!" "Search me. Must be something new."

I have to agree with seeker here: it seems to me that gays have existed in all times and places throughout human history. It's pretty clear to me that Hebrews were severely down on homosexuality for various reasons, mainly to maintain their extreme patriarchal mindset and set themselves apart from surrounding pagan cultures. Paul is the epitome of this. Whatever the case, who cares, really? I simply ignore the superstitious & provincial parts of the bible and take from it what I want. I'm not concerned in the least with literalist interpretations which, in turn, take what they want and explain away the inconvenient parts. As I explained elsewhere, I prefer the Greek worldview to the Jew anyway – Solon to Abraham, Socrates to Jesus, Plato to Paul. The Hebrew culture, with its hatred of the body and the sensual and intellectual joys of life, would naturally hate the Greco-Roman, and Saul/Paul must be seen in that light.

You bring up an interesting new topic which I am exploring, which is the Christian approach to the body. One of the reasons I took up yoga was because it was a physical discipline that integrated with the spiritual. Christianity, in general, has had a very negative theology of the human body, and so, has never really developed any spiritual discplines for the body beyond "buffeting the body and making it your slave" and such practices as fasting (not to mention the unbiblical self-immolation). However, I have no my nightstand (unread) a couple of interesting books on the subject including Reclaiming The Body In Christian Spirituality and Prayer of Heart and Body: Meditation and Yoga As Christian Spiritual Practice

Were there reciprocal same sex relationships in the ancient world? Yes (probably in greater numbers than Seeker would care to admit). But the notion of a same sex orientation did not develop until the late 19th century. This fact stands unchallenged. Were same gender couples often treated awfully by society? Yes. I never said Judeo-Christian culture did not have much to answer for. (Keep in mind the problem stems not from the Christian message but from bad theology served up by the likes of Seeker). Is what Paul is writing about a reciprocal same gender relationship? No. To the extent that these did exist they were done on the down low. The same sex relationships that Paul comments on were built upon power and status and were uniformly exploitative and therefore rightly condemned. Maybe Paul would have been critical of reciprocal same gender relationships but the fact stands that he was not. All of the same sex relationships condemned in the Bible are of the exploitative kind, which is not at all what we are discussing today. We can conclude that there is no condemnation of same sex relationships per se in the Bible. In fact all of Scripture points us toward honoring and affirming committed, reciprocal relationships, whatever there gender composition. It is this fact that drives the Seeker’s of the world into the arms of weak, scholarly deficient Bible translations and into a blind ignorance that what was discussed in the Bible regarding same sex relationships is not at all similar to the discussion of same sex relationships that are built on mutual love and respect. The sooner that true Bible believing Christians show the Seeker’s of this world the door the sooner we can continue with the preaching of the good news of Jesus Christ.

the notion of a same sex orientation More recent justifications for sinful behavior do not mean that such behaviors AND their motivations were unknown. It merely means that they were not framed in some "scientific" construct. Just because science indicates that my environment or biology drives me to multiple sex partners or violence does not make it any less sinful. It only means that I must deal with the emotional and volitional causes, as well as the biological (with medication, for example). Why does the revelation of same-sex orientation change the meaning of the text condemning the act? When they said "those who practice homosexuality," or adultery, it is unqualified – in other words, the reasons WHY aren't really important, since such actions are sinful. It goes, perhaps without saying that the motives behind it are equally sinful. Jesus said that a man who lusts after a woman is guilty already. If a man lusts after a man (and the bible gives no indication that SSA is anything other than lust, since marriage is clearly and only defined as heterosexual), is he not also guilty? I mean, sure, gay relationships involve emotional attachment and companionship, not just physical attraction, but regardless, I think that the biblical position is that ALL same-sex romantic and sexual interaction is against nature and sinful. And that pretty much describes homosexual orientation. But you beg a good question. If some other activities, such as lying, are sometimes dependent on motive and context, why not sexuality? I would answer that 1. Just because SOME actions are motive- or context-sensitive does not make ALL so. 2. Sexual sins are *never* viewed as motive or context-sensitive in the bible, though you might argue that polygamy was "overlooked."

I suppose this is important to "bible-believing Christians," but to moderate and progressive xians, and those of us who consider ourselves non-theists, "sin" does not exist. Thus, you opinions on hx are irrelevant to us. seeker, I think you are entitled to your religious opinions, but the rest of us need not be bound by them. And, in particular, American citizens shouldn't be required to toe your religious line.

Sorry about the above. I don't think so-called moderate and progressive xians don't believe that sin exists. I meant to say that they don't think covenental hx relationships are sinful. Of course, the rest of us don't think "sin" exists.

The act that Paul was condemning was a power based, exploitative act of domination not a loving reciprocal act by two people committed to each other. What exactly do you not understand about this? Paul is NOT condemning the act of same gender sex in and of itself. He is condemning any act of violence and domination of one over another. That you allow your clear hatred for gays to blind you to the truth of this fact does not make it any less true. Additionally the text does not say “homosexuality”. That word was put into the “translations” you use for ideological reasons-an act of intellectual fraud perpetrated upon God’s Word. If you care to look at the biblical scholarship and try to understand the literary, cultural and historic context of the Bible then you might discover what the authors of this book were trying to teach us and you might then just find out that the book still has much to teach us today. I know intelligent scholarship is a lot to ask from one who thinks the Earth is only 10,000 years old but I would remind you that Christ died to take away our sins not our brains.

And, in particular, American citizens shouldn't be required to toe your religious line. I agree. I am not asking for religious consideration in public policy. FCLs contentions were about what the bible says, which is the context for my answer. As I've said, government should be neutral on questionable issues like gay marriage, rather than forcing the values of either pole (condoning or condemning).

I agree that gov't should be neutral. Therefore, it follows that it should get out of the marriage business altogether. Civil unions should be established for all couples, gay and straight, with the same rights and responsibilities. Leave marriage up to the various faiths.

I find your observations to be laced with an unfortunate lack of "complete" scripture reference: 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. —————- Are you not aware of verse 11:And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. 1 Cor 6:11 (NIV) *You see in failing to include this verse in your quote, you are failing to include the wonderful promise of God's work to any sinner who has fallen short, including yourself. Washed, sanctified, and justified are the key words in this passage…not "do you not know". In not including verse 11 you are nullifying the grace of God, through Christ.